Strength in Numbers (Warriors 110, Magic 100)

On Steph Curry Bobblehead Night at Oracle, the Warriors were somewhat amusingly without the services of Steph Curry, who suffered a thigh contusion early in the win over the Philadelphia 76ers. If the latter half of that opening sentence sounds familiar, that’s because it is an almost verbatim copy of the sentence I used to describe Kevin Durant’s absence earlier against the Timberwolves. With an embarrassment of riches dotting their roster and a season expected to stretch into the early summer months, the Dubs can afford to be quite conservative with their injury management, and these games are opportunities to assess parts of the roster that are somewhat hidden by the brilliance of the Warriors’ primary stars. Against a shockingly improved Orlando Magic team that has gone from 29th in the league at shooting the three (32.8%) to second in the league, just behind the Warriors, the Dubs overcame the absence of Steph Curry with ease, comfortably dispatching the Magic 110-100.

The Warriors have had some experience in playing without Steph Curry, particularly a long stretch in the 2015-2016 playoffs against the Houston Rockets and the Portland Trailblazers. Back then, the Warriors didn’t have another MVP on their roster; now they do, with Kevin Durant able to easily absorb some of the scoring workload and the onus of keeping the well-oiled machine running. Durant wasn’t his typical hyper-efficient self, shooting “just” 50% from the floor (9-18) and missing all four of his three point attempts. Additionally, he occasionally got a little trigger happy looking for his own shot, but his presence and the luxury of having a 4-time NBA scoring champ to rely upon to get a bucket was just about all the Dubs needed. Durant finished with a game-high 21 points, 7 rebounds, and 8 assists.

Also brilliant were the unsung plus/minus darlings of the Warriors, Draymond Green and Shaun Livingston. Draymond had a hand in just about everything the Warriors did on the night, playing some outstanding individual and team defense against a three-point bombing Magic attack. More atypically, Draymond was aggressive in hunting for his shot and nearly matched Durant in scoring output, racking up 20 points on just 11 shots and nailing 3 threes (two barely grazed touched the net on the way down, while one had to be willed into the hoop). Draymond also took on a conductor’s role on offense, controlling the tempo and cleverly seeking out mismatches to great effect. His now-standard ridiculous statline included 4 rebounds, 5 assists, and 2 steals with a +25 rating on the night. Shaun Livingston, who Jim Barnett said was feeling “springy,” did his damage down low, pouring in 16 points on 6-12 shooting to go with 6 assists and 2 boards to finish +16 for the evening. Livingston’s game might not be as flashy as Steph’s or as loud as Draymond’s, but his ability to seek out favorable matchups and exploit his almost unfair height advantage over other guards is no less effective for its simplicity.

The story of this game is more about the Warriors’ collaborative replacement of Steph (validating the Strength in Numbers slogan, as Shaun brought up in his post-game interview) than any individual exploits. Klay Thompson continued to flash his newfound court vision, adding 5 clever assists to his 15 points and 4 rebounds. David West was a rebounding machine, and while some of his passes to cutters went awry, he was a bench-high +9 and piled up 11 rebounds and 5 assists. Iguodala was a relentless defender and absolutely erased whomever he was defending from the game. And while the end of the bench suffered a collective +/- meltdown in garbage time, Kevon Looney, Omri Casspi, and Nick Young continued their strong recent run of play. As a team, the Warriors shot 50%, outrebounded the athletic Magic by 15, and assisted on 35 of their 44 made field goals, despite the absence of one Wardell Stephen Curry.

The narrative arc tonight was almost perfectly consistent with how the Warriors have operated throughout this seven game winning streak: early wobbles and inconsistencies, followed by a massive second half surge and extend periods of garbage time. Despite absences from different players and some fairly high-quality opponents, the Warriors have dispatched foe after foe with almost contemptuous ease, a fact which belies the truth that the Warriors, despite their successes, still have a lot of things they can improve upon. For the Magic, this game was a stark reminder that, despite their hot start to the season, they’ve still got a long way to go. For the Warriors, this was the kind of workmanlike performance that they needed sans Curry. With a can’t-miss matchup against the 12-2 Celtics coming up on Thursday, the Warriors did well to avoid a trap-game loss. A battle with Kyrie and friends looms.

viggy

Post navigation

You wrote: “Liberal ignorance can sometimes be laughable and sometimes it is dangerous.”

1) How is that different from conservative ignorance or any other type of ignorance?

Why are you so triggered by “liberal ignorance” but not by “conservative ignorance”?

2) Who are you decide that Draymond Green or Phan Boi are ignorant? What purpose that kind of name calling serve? Are you sure this is the kind of “debate” you wish to engage in?

Joe Nava

You wrote: “The absurdly provincial narrative that any one group has proprietary rights to thought or feeling is not progressive.”

That’s a ridiculous straw man argument. When did Green claim to have “proprietary rights to thought or feeling”? That is an absurd misrepresentation not supported by facts, logic, or common sense.

dr_john

How much? In addition to what they already get?

Joe Nava

You wrote: “Learn history beyond your own.”

I suggest you take your own advice.

Look, I don’t agree with everything Green said. But I have enough empathy to give him the benefit of the doubt. And I can’t understand why anyone but a rightwing ideologue would fail do to do the same.

Cuban’s response to what Green said was more ridiculous than what Green said. Specifically, Cuban’s claim that what Green said was as bad as what Houston Texans ownder Bob McNair said. That is absurd. That’s the point at where I have to concluded that Cuban is full of something… and that something stinks…

Joe Nava

What do they get? And how does that compare to the money that colleges get form their mostly unpaid labor?

dr_john

The burden is on you. Your assertion about fairness and they should be paid. My question is simple enough. And my post below provides some info.

How much?

Joe Nava

No, my friend, the burden is on you. You wrote “In addition to what they already get?” So I’m asking you, what do “they” get?

dr_john

“They”? You’re trying to make a controversy and force it off the rails.

“They” are athletes, and they get a lot of scholarships, full ride plus spending money and arranged “work” and free tutoring etc.

You should know this but are just trying to make this a lost debate. You seem to be arguing for a “wage” for participation, but refuse to say how much?

How much?

Joe Nava

An amount commensurate with the money that their labor brings to the colleges they play/work for.

Here’s one way to start to figure that out:

Almost none of the NCAA’s new $8.8 billion TV deal is earmarked for athletes

By Kevin Trahan / 04/14/2016

(long) excerpt:
Part of the NCAA’s business model is to pretend it’s broke, and it’s hard to do that when the association is making $1.1 billion per year solely on the television revenue from a three-week basketball tournament. That doesn’t include any other part of the NCAA’s revenue, nor does it include the hundreds of millions of dollars each major conference brings in from their own television deals and ticket sales, or schools’ own licensing deals.

With billions of dollars in the system, the NCAA needs to justify its rules that prohibit athletes from receiving any of the money. That’s where the 90 percent comes in.

Technically, the NCAA does distribute 90 percent of its revenue to schools. In 2015-16, that was $544 million. But very little of that money actually goes to the athletes in any comprehensible definition of that phrase.

According to the NCAA, just 15 percent of the money distributed to schools has to be used to aid athletes financially for academic purposes (like summer school) or if they are overwhelmingly burdened by the association’s amateurism rules. A whopping 85 percent of the money can be used however schools want it to be used. The NCAA does earmark five percent of the money for academic assistance and three percent for student support, but the association notes that schools are merely “encouraged” to use the money for those purposes.

So this year — well before the new deal takes effect — the NCAA will bring in roughly $770 million from the NCAA Tournament. Last year, it brought in $912 million overall. $544 million will go to schools, but only $80 million is required to go to athletes. Assuming the association’s total revenue doesn’t rise, that’s just 8.8 percent of the money actually going to athletes.

But the NCAA takes exception to that argument. It claims that money that goes to coaches and administrators — both from its NCAA Tournament pool and from schools’ own revenues — actually helps athletes. In fact NCAA economic expert Lauren Stiroh even testified with this point in the O’Bannon v. NCAA trial. Unsurprisingly, the judge essentially disregarded the entirety of her testimony in ruling against the NCAA.

It’s completely nonsensical to claim that money that’s going to coaches, administrators and facilities is actually going to athletes. No matter how much you like your job, you probably wouldn’t be okay with your boss taking all of your salary, giving half to himself and using half to buy the most expensive coffee machine on the planet for the whole office to use. Sure, the machine might brew tasty coffee that you can drink, but you’d also probably rather have the money.

What’s worse is that athletes are missing out on tens, if not hundreds of thousands of dollars over the course of their career.

If the NCAA decided to give just 10 percent of the money it earns on the NCAA Tournament every season to every scholarship player on the 351 men’s basketball teams, each player would get $24,107.

That’s just 10 percent! The association would still have $990 million to give to school administrators to buy new cars with.

So what about a more reasonable 50 percent? That’s roughly the percentage of TV revenue that NFL and NBA players get. Remember, that’s not 50 percent of the money generated in college athletics — some schools make hundreds of millions without NCAA money, and every power conference school brings in at least $50 million. With TV contracts going up, those numbers will rise, too. By 2017, Big Ten schools are projected to bring in $45 million per year just on distributions from the conference, to speak nothing of NCAA money, their own licensing deals, etc.

So we have 50 percent of the television money just from this three-week tournament to give out, and nothing else. What can we do with it? We can:

Give $120,535 to each Division 1 basketball player
Give $17,460 to each of the scholarship 31,500 athletes in Division I sports (Note: this is per “scholarship.” So those on half scholarship could get half.)
The common argument is that we can’t pay players because then we’d have to pay rowers and gymnasts, and there isn’t enough money to do that. While that premise is flawed to begin with, it’s clear that there is plenty of money to pay rowers and gymnasts without touching any money brought in by the schools themselves.

The NCAA does not give 90 percent of its March Madness money to athletes. It gives nearly all of its money to administrators, coaches and facilities, which will now be getting even more.

1) Triggered? More like disgusted – but not surprised – there are people much like mahmoud ahmadinejad on this site, downplaying genocide and somehow seeing it as an extension of their personal cause. I don’t know your background, but I laid mine out regarding this subject and their ignorance, and as someone who lost family to the Nazis, I have that right. That’s who I am. If you took the time to read rather than shoot your hot take, you’d know that. If saying you too are ignorant about Nazis and Jews is engaging in name calling, OK. Consider that I called someone who did that the name “ignorant”.

2) Do I wish to debate whether telling a Jewish man he needs to take a back seat your (or Draymond’s) feelings on Nazis chanting “JEWS WILL NOT REPLACE US!”? Sure, go ahead and debate THIS Jewish man. At least I’ll have a good idea where the Holocaust deniers are on this blog.

You are out of your depth on this.

Many liberals don’t seem to be able to see things these days any better than the nationalist alt-right. All binary for many of both of them. That lack of understanding of complexity and the FACT that grey areas exist is the ignorance I refer to – an existence they refuse to recognize because it demands THOUGHT. Need I repeat that I find far-right attitudes equally repulsive? I think I’ve written many things on this blog making my perspective about them quite clear.

Joe Nava

So if Cuban were not Jewish, what Green said would be ok? But because Cuban is Jewish, Green is not allowed to say that he does not like the idea of owners of sports teams being referred to as “owners”? Is that really your argument?

dr_john

Just post links, I can read.

I think we’re done. If the NCAA TV money goes to the players only, all the other college sports go down the tube. And, when this happens, all the small programs get cut out. The stars will make out,until they fail in life.

I’ll give you this—if an athlete can get 24,000 annually above every other benefit they get, then perhaps, just maybe, they might stay in school.

Too bad my kids never got any of that when they fought their way (3 out of 4) to graduation without anyone to pay their way.

Joe Nava

Why should the labor of players in the profitable sports (basketball and college, primarily) be exploited to pay for the costs associated with other sports (including the salaries of coaches and administrators and the cost of facilities owned by the colleges)?

If we’re going to do that in college sports, why not do it in society at large and have most of the salaries of people in lucrative careers be taken from them and be re-distributed to people in careers that don’t pay well?

Joe Nava

You wrote: “Too bad my kids never got any of that when they fought their way (3 out of 4) to graduation without anyone to pay their way.”

Too bad you seem unable or unwilling to understand that no one is “paying the way” for the vast majority of the college athletes whose labor is being exploited so that college administrators and coaches can earn huge salaries.

Joe Nava

You wrote: “Too bad my kids never got any of that when they fought their way (3 out of 4) to graduation without anyone to pay their way.”

Too bad you seem unable or unwilling to understand that no one is “paying the way” for the vast majority of the college athletes whose labor is being exploited so that college administrators and coaches can earn huge salaries.

Bill P

Draymond didn’t talk about McNair. This quote is from yesterday. At Harvard. You thrust is out of context.

I’m not the individual trying to…what’s the new liberal catchphrase? ah, yes…”appropriate” another people’s attempted extermination as a prop for a shoddy attempt to shore up my ego.

On this subject, I don’t have to know more history than that, whether I do or not. You nor anyone else gets to supersede a victims of the Jewish Holocaust as a target and victim of the arm of the perpetrators of that very holocaust because it suits your petty fight with Mark Cuban to do so. Nope.

Ah! You asked about liberal ignorance? Your binary perspective is that either a person agrees with Draymond hook, line, and sinker or they’re a right-wing ideologue. That binary approach is ignorant – and the dangerous kind – and will be the downfall of this society if it does not get checked.

Good night. I think I’ve learned enough about your perspective on my people.

Joe Nava

Sounds like you feel strongly about other people’s perspectives on “your people.” So does Green. You should try offering him and “his people” the kind of empathy you want for you and “your people.”

Bill P

nice attempt at spin. nope. I’ve made my points quite clearly. You are reaching for a very gross distortion of reality.

Here it is for you, pared down to a uncomplicated thing: not a victim of Nazis but talking about a Nazi rally where historic victims are being framed for victimization again? Your primary place is to think of those victims first, not tell them they come after your feelings. Clear enough? room for your feelings, just not by shoving theirs out of the way.

And yes, this is what Green did to a Jewish guy, millionaire or not, intentionally or not. Draymond is surely and with necessary statement entitled to think the word owner is somehow wrong, but he can’t rightfully use the holocaust as his own personal wound to support that – especially not to a Jewish person. Or a Gypsy. Or a homosexual person. Those are the victims, not Draymond. Period.

dr_john

Scholarship athletes on a full boat get what? 20k? 30k? More?Depending on the school. And you say that doesn’t count? Plus all the other benefits I named?

Yeah, there are a lot of athletes paying their own way—but these are not the big money programs you are citing.

Look, I already said I favor a stipend. WTF more do you want?

You need to give your criteria. 24k for which college starters? Or for all roster players?

I want these kids to succeed, but if anything, these monies that are raised should support the entire university and the breadth of the curriculum.

No one, not me at least, is saying to take advantage of the poor athlete. Not what I said, ever.

Joe Nava

Green used the Jewish “holocaust as his own personal wound to support” his claim that he does not like the word owner used when referring to the owners of sports teams? Can you please cite the passage where Green did that?

Bill P

Are you attempting to lecture me?

I won’t continue this. You have the tone of a millennial who sees my people’s history as some sort of elastic toy to bend to your off-course, tone-deaf narrative. It’s deeply rude, deeply insensitive, and you seem to take pleasure in it.

Try getting persecuted before you speak next time about understanding persecution.

For now, please do not address me. The more you say on this the more I come to believe you are a closet anti-Semite.

Joe Nava

You wrote: “Scholarship athletes on a full boat get what? 20k? 30k? More?Depending on the school. And you say that doesn’t count? Plus all the other benefits I named?”

1) Who says that amount is fair when the coaches and administrators make far, far, more–often hundreds of thousands (or more than a million a year)? Explain to me how that is fair. Please.

2) What percentage of players on a basketball team get a scholarship? How do you justify the exploitation of players who are not on scholarship and therefore get nothing for their labor?

You wrote: “Yeah, there are a lot of athletes paying their own way—but these are not the big money programs you are citing.”

I don’t get the point you’re trying to make. Sorry.

You wrote: “Look, I already said I favor a stipend. WTF more do you want?”

I don’t understand why you sound so angry. I’m not attacking. We’re talking about an issue of basic fairness in terms of who should benefit from the labor of college athletes. Right?

You wrote: “You need to give your criteria. 24k for which college starters? Or for all roster players?”

I believe all roster players should be paid. And the money they make should be based on how much their league makes. Players should be allowed to form an union and fight for their rights to be paid fairly. Just like professional players do. How much individual players make should be worked out by the union and the colleges they play/work for.

You wrote: “I want these kids to succeed, but if anything, these monies that are raised should support the entire university and the breadth of the curriculum.”

Why? Why should the money that the labor of these players/workers bring in have to be used for other purposes? Why do that only in college and not in the pros? Why not use that same logic and say that money should be taken from all professional athletes to support X, Y, or Z?

You wrote: “No one, not me at least, is saying to take advantage of the poor athlete. Not what I said, ever.”

Okay. But the labor of a lot of athletes is being unfairly exploited so that college coaches and administrators can make huge salaries. That is what I am saying. Would you agree with that?

Joe Nava

Go back and re-read what you have written on this issue. Your tone is far worse than mine has been. If you wanted to have a civil debate, you shouldn’t have attacked Phan Boi the way you did.

And your claims that I am a “closet anti-Semite” don’t hold water. What have I said that demonstrated that kind of prejudice?

Bill P

Charlottesville. Read what actually happened and who did it. Or don’t. Draymond apparently sure didn’t. KKK, Neo-Nazis marching and chanting anti-Semitic slogans. This was very specific and aimed at my people. Jeez. Really?

If you can’t see how Green saying that the actions of those people are about him more than a Jewish person is ignorant you’re hopeless. I’m really, really done. Leave me alone.

Joe Nava

If Green really did say that, I disagree with him on that. But I didn’t see him saying anything like that. Please give me a link to that so I can see what you are talking about if you want me to address that.

dr_john

The average across 351 NCAA Div. I basketball is 13 scholarships and 16k for men. That’s the average.

Big program numbers are different, ranging from 38k to 26k, with a high of over 53k.

I’m not angry. I asked what is so wrong with the system as it is. This started with Adam Silver’s comments I guess.

Seems to me that whatever they come up with should be public. Paying some UCLA freshman 62k to play ball is something I would question.

You really hate that coaches and AD’s make so much money (in the major programs), and I might agree that is public money mis-spent, especially since there aren’t any penalties for broken contracts nor performance based contracts.

Correct me if I’m wrong on this. I believe most of that scholarship money that you cited is used to pay for the college tuition costs of the student-athlete and sometimes also for living expenses (dorm contracts) and a bit of money for food (college dining plan). So where it appears is if an athlete is getting a bigger scholarship (at a major school), what is really happening is that the athlete is simply going to a school where the college charges higher tuition (or charges more for it’s dorm contract and dining plan)? Right?

So, at the end of the day, almost all of the athlete’s scholarship money is going back to the school that he works for. Right?

And many of these athletes won’t graduate so they won’t get the benefit the comes with getting a college degree.

Meanwhile, many college coaches and administrators are making hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars in salary a year, salaries funded, in large part, or entirely from the money that the unpaid or severely underpaid labor of those college athletes bring in. And that is extremely unfair.

Why should the labor of college athletes be exploited in ways that the labor of professional athletes is not?

Bill P

It isn’t my job to link you to info, but it is out there if you use a simple web page called google. Mental laziness is the curse of the millennials and the biggest tool of Donald Trump and those who act in his behalf. If you do not know much about Charlottesville and the acts of the white supremacists there and equally important you do not understand Jewish history in relation to that, how do you possibly dare to flat out say that I have things wrong? Because you’re ignorant, and if your ignorance turns willful – as it seems to be by insisting Green isn’t deeply insulting Jews for his own pathetic benefit – then your ignorance is by the essence of what you dismiss and downplay anti-Semitic. That’s the technical term. it applies to you, Phan, and Green. Forceful adherence to this becomes holocaust denial. Phan got called out for being ignorant. If you think that is getting attacked, well you have a lot of living and growing up to do.

Draymond’s words are there in my OP and if you can’t figure out how they denigrate, ask the ADL. If you don’t know what the ADL is, I’m not surprised, but look it up. Seriously, I’m way past done here. I’m being charitable with you because I’ve enjoyed interacting with you. Otherwise, I’d have written you off.

Joe Nava

Why are you trying to make this issue about holocaust denial when you and Mark Cuban were upset with Green’s remarks about owners of sports teams before he said anything about Charlottesville? Answer that question with the kind of intellectual honesty that you say you want to hear from me.

And tell me what anti-Semitic statements I have made. How would you like it if I called you racist for criticizing Green? That is what I hear you doing when I criticize Cuban for something that has nothing to do with the holocaust. I criticized him for saying that what Green said was “as bad” as what Bob McNair said. How is that anti-Semitic?

Joe Nava

Here is what you wrote in your OP, which you asked me to re-read:

“Draymond actually called out a Jewish man for not being able to understand that Draymond is the rightful owner of feelings regarding white supremacists chanting “JEWS WILL NOT REPLACE US”
————————————————–

When did Green say that Cuban had no right to have feelings about white supremacists chanting “Jews will not replace us”? Did Green say that? Or are you falsely claiming that he said that?

Joe Nava

Here is what Green said to Cuban:

(excerpt)

He challenged the students to do the same, and he challenged Cuban to understand where he’s coming from.

“It’s kind of hard to speak out and say that’s wrong, and you can’t feel that way, and I can own equity, and I can do this, and you’re dead wrong for saying that,” Green said. “But you can’t say I’m dead wrong because you really don’t know how it feels to turn on that TV and see a young black man shot by a police officer and he was unarmed.

Medina shared more of Green’s comments: “When you look at Mark Cuban, for instance, with the whole equity thing, we can all own equity and that’s fine. But Mark Cuban would never know or understand how it feels for me, a young black man and turn on the TV and see what happened in Charlottesville.”

Where is the part where Green said that Cuban has no right to have feelings about the despicable anti-Semitic chants of the white supremacists at Charlottesville? I’m not seeing that anywhere in what he said.

Bill P

Here you go. The quote you conveniently ignore. The rest was posted yesterday by me on the board earlier, before Phan in a most cowardly and passively-aggressive fashion pretended not to be responding to me. If you want to see the complete Draymond text from The Athletic, it is further below. This is the deeply offending portion:

“Mark Cuban will never know or understand how it feels for me, a young black African-American, to turn on the TV and see what happened in Charlottesville. He’ll never have that feeling.”

– Draymond Green

Sure Draymond. Sure Joe. Tell a Jewish person how you as a young black man are impacted by Nazis shouting and marching against Jews and they aren’t, how you somehow have some greater perspective and they don’t. Go for it as you watch the video of Charlottesville below. Keep telling yourself that. Then leave me alone permanently.

What you say I said: “When did Green say that Cuban had no right to have feelings about white supremacists chanting “Jews will not replace us”?”

What I said: “Draymond actually called out a Jewish man for not being able to
understand that Draymond is the rightful owner of feelings regarding
white supremacists chanting “JEWS WILL NOT REPLACE US”

Hint 1: not remotely the same.

Hint 2: What Draymond said was that Cuban can’t understand Charlottesville as Green does, that in Draymond’s twisted and self-serving logic, not to mention deeply insensitive assertion young black men somehow have a deeper sense of Nazis shouting and marching against Jews than a Jewish person does. It’s intentionally dismissive of Cuban, which is insulting on many levels, including all that I’ve repeatedly stated to you over the last day.

But you are hopeless in my opinion. so please, go away. If you can’t respect that I find your desire to casually argue my tribe’s inflicted aggressions away as some extension of Draymond Green revolting, well, all the more reason not to interact with you.

Joe Nava

Wait a minute. Are you saying that when Draymond Green said “Mark Cuban will never know or understand how it feels for me, a young black African-American, to turn on the TV and see what happened in Charlottesville” he was making an anti-Semitic statement?

How does Green saying that he believes Cuban cannot feel what he (Green) as a black man felt when he (Green) saw what happened in Charlottesville equate to saying that Cuban has no right to feeling disgust/anger about the despicable anti-Semitic statements those white supremacists made?

That is one GIGANTIC and ERRONEOUS leap in logic.

Geen saying (in effect) “you (Mark Cuban) cannot feel how I as a black man feel about Charlottesville” is NOT in any way an anti-Semitic statement. That is one of the most absurd misrepresentations I have ever read.

Do you seriously believe that anyone with a brain is going to buy that argument?

It looks as if you are desperately trying to claim some kind of moral high ground by misrepresenting what Green said as an attack on Jews. But there is nothing in what he said to support that argument. Please don’t make such foolish claims. Please. It is beneath you. Or should be.

Joe Nava

You wrote: “Sure Draymond. Sure Joe. “He’ll never have that feeling”

But you conveniently left out the part where Green said Cuban “will never know or understand how it feels for me, a young black African-American.”

Now, you could argue that Green is wrong about Cuban being unable to understand how Green feels despite Cuban not being black. I might buy that. That is highly unlikely (given Cuban’s attack on Green) but it is not impossible.

But for you to argue that what Green said in his talk at Harvard (or what Phan Boi or I said in this argument) was anti-Semitic is ridiculous.

How is Green opining that Cuban cannot see things from the perspective of a black man be called anti-Semitic? What kind of tortuous road must one take to arrive at such an absurd conclusion?

Joe Nava

You wrote:

“Hint 2: What Draymond said was that Cuban can’t understand Charlottesville as Green does, that in Draymond’s twisted and self-serving logic, not to mention deeply insensitive assertion young black men somehow have a deeper sense of Nazis shouting and marching against Jews than a Jewish person does. It’s intentionally dismissive of Cuban, which is insulting on many levels, including all that I’ve repeatedly stated to you over the last day.”

No, no, no. A thousand times no. You do NOT have the right to misrepresent what Green said. I mean, you can make all the ridiculous claims you want… But no one with a brain is going to buy them. There is NOTHING in what Green said that was an attack on Jews. NOTHING. Not one single thing. Nada. Zilch. Cero.

All Green said was that Cuban cannot understand how he (Green) felt as a black man when he saw what happened in Charlottesville. Green never said that “young black men somehow have a deeper sense of Nazis shouting and marching against Jews than a Jewish person does.” Where did you get that ridiculous idea? Not from anything Green said. That is 100% your invention.

Green never said anything about blacks having “a deeper sense of Nazis shouting and marching against Jews than a Jewish person does.” YOU are the one who said that, not Green. Stop making up things and claiming Green said them. No one is buying that nonsense.

Bill P

Charlottesville was not about being black. Get that through your skull, and then get it through Draymond’s skull. Not everything revolves around African-Americans, even if Draymond insinuates it all does. What it was in Charlottesville was an blatant, open, and aggressive attack on Jewish people’s comfort and stability, plain to see from the video and the audio. Jewish People. Do you understand?

Those are the facts of Charlottesville. Ignore them and keep trying to warp this into Jews not understanding black people, but the facts remain the same. You and Draymond are wrong and are the individuals you don’t understand. You and Draymond are the ones who don’t “get it” and thus are ignorant, and clearly both willfully.

Joe Nava

The despicable cretins who participated in the march on Charlottesville were racist against Jews and against Blacks and other people of color. Where did you get the idea that they were only against Jews? That is easily disproven. Do you want me to find you proof that you’re wrong about that?

Bill P

you’ve intentionally put words in my mouth over and over. go away. you are not better than Trump. I never said Draymond attacked Jews. Please go away. I now consider you a liar.

Dude, if you can’t grasp that Draymond was attempting to stake out some sort of emotional ground as off limits to Cuban, and that the context of those emotional grounds was Charlottesville, and you can’t recognize that Charlottesville was an OPEN attack on Jewish people NOT black people, again, you’re a hopeless liar participating in downplaying anti-Semitic behavior by denying the true actions which took place. By participating in downplaying said behavior, you share in the responsibility of antisemitism.

Here’s one for you: think how people react when instead of black lives matter someone says “all lives matter”. You should get that analogy. If not, just go away. I won’t respond again, anyhow.

Joe Nava

You’re the one who has engaged in putting words in other people’s mouths by claiming that Green and Phan Boi and I made anti-Semitic statements. Which is complete and utter nonsense.

And you and Cuban started attacking Green for what he said about not liking the use of the word “owner” when it comes to owners of sports teams before he spoke at Harvard and made that statement about Charlottesville. So your claim that this is all about what Green said about Charlottesville is demonstrably false. You’re not fooling anyone. Other than maybe yourself.

Your claim that the Charlottesville protests were only about anti-Semitism and not in any way about racism against Blacks is also demonstrably false. Again, you’re not fooling anyone.

I don’t get why you’re telling so many easily disproven lies.

Bill P

nope. you read very poorly.

Bill P

nope. wrong again.

how you think it’s ok to dismiss Nazis marching and chanting agaist Jewish people should be your embarassment, but you are quite clearly comfortable with attempting to turn hating Jewish people into hurting Draymond’s feelings.

fail. and you demonstrate your comfort level with dismissing anti-Semitic behavior – yours and otherwise. Not a pretty optic for you.

Joe Nava

You wrote: “Draymond’s words are there in my OP.”

Yes, they are. And his words talk only about his perspective as a black man. They do not say Cuban or anyone else has no right to have a different perspective. Your claim that Green’s words say Cuban doesn’t have a right to do X or Y or Z holds no water. That’s something you are inventing.

As for your accusations that Green or Phan Boi or I are anti-Semitic or holocaust deniers or any such thing, they are ridiculous. You are seriously deluded.

Stop making things up. Stop lying. You’re embarrassing yourself. You may not realize it. But you are.

Joe Nava

Stop making up things. Stop lying. Just stop.

Bill P

the only embarrassment is that you can’t see yourself for who you are.

Joe Nava

Your insults have become tiresome and boring. I’m blocking you now. Good bye.